Reflections: Pages 8-15

In “Reflections on the Guillotine” by Albert Camus, Camus continues his commentary about capital punishment with the question of the immediacy of death via guillotine, the idea of increased publicity, and the notion that the State cannot effectively intimidate potential criminals.

Death is immediate, right? Not necessarily. Multiple doctor and eyewitness accounts during the 18th century suggest that there are signs of consciousness immediately after decapitation (8-10). For example, Doctors Piedelièvre and Fournier published their findings in their 1956 essay “Justice Sans Bourreau,” which translates to “Justice Without the Executioner.” The doctors claim that decapitation via guillotine is “frightfully painful,” as the freshly decapitated bodies are in a state of in-between, transitioning from life to death. This can be noted when observing the corpses’ eyes. Specifically, “if [the severed head’s eyes] are devoid of the cloudiness and opalescence of the corpse [and] they have no motion, their transparence belongs to life, but their fixity belongs to death.” Unfortunately for the ‘deceased,’ this process can take hours (8). In “Les Monstres,” an executioner’s assistant claims that the “head dies at once, but the body … is still quivering” at the cemetery twenty minutes later. In “Les Délinquants,” Father Devoyed recounts his experience with a “condemned man’s eyes fixed on [him] with a look of supplication as if to ask for forgiveness… then the lids blinked [and] the eyes softened … [and] became vague.” Thus, these accounts offer mixed perspectives on how the head and body react to the trauma of decapitation, but they share a common theme of delayed death; however, to add my own brief commentary, these movements may occur after death when the mind is devoid of consciousness. Even so, this form of capital punishment may not be as “rapid and humane” as originally thought (8). 

As previously mentioned, Camus describes the need for wider publicity to ‘help’ the State intimidate potential criminals. For instance, Camus illustrates how potential criminals are most likely asleep when the executions occur (10). This relates back to the question I posed in my last post, how can something be frightening if no one knows what really happens behind the closed prison yard doors? Camus insists that “it would be wiser, instead of hiding the execution, to hold up the severed head in front of all who are shaving in the morning” (11). By increasing publicity, Camus hopes to entice public disgust and disapproval. However, he points out the problem publicity poses for the State. By publicizing executions, the State becomes susceptible to public backlash and revolt for hiding the truth of capital punishment (11) with “the flowers of rhetoric” (10).

Camus details situations in which the State’s intimidation tactics would be unsuccessful. For example, the death penalty is unlikely to intimidate those who kill in “a state of frenzy” or those who bring a weapon to frighten someone into obedience and unexpectedly use it (12). In other words, “capital punishment could not intimidate the man who doesn’t know that he is going to kill,” meaning that the State fails to consider that murder can be unpremeditated just as it can be premeditated (12).

Camus points his attention to illustrating the type of person who is likely to commit future crimes and whether this type of person would be susceptible to the State’s intimidation tactics. Camus claims that “the power of intimidation reaches only the quiet individuals who are not drawn toward crime and has no effect on the hardened ones who need to be softened” (13). A handful of statistics support this. In early 20th-century England, 170 out of 250 prisoners who were executed had previously attended at least one public execution (13). Additionally, in 1886, 164 out of 167 Bristol prisoners had observed at least one public execution (13). This means that 68% and 98% of the prisoners, respectively, had witnessed a public execution, but this clearly did not stop them from committing a crime. This could be because people go through a “series of oscillations” every day, demonstrating how unstable the human mind and body are (14). This is an important consideration because the law does not consider these oscillations and impulses that influence behavior. It is possible that a criminal could understand the consequences of acting unethically, but in a time of high impulse, there is no stopping him/her (14). Though Camus did not have access to French records because of the secrecy surrounding capital punishment, it is safe to assume that this pattern would be present in French prisons. Along with the tendency of murderers and criminals to be “hardened” and unreceptive to intimidation tactics, “the murderer, most of the time, feels innocent when he kills,” and he “will [only] fear death after the verdict but not before the crime” (14-15). Thus, how can capital punishment be justified if the statistics contradict the claim that intimidation leads to prevention?

Camus provides a rich argument against the barbaric process of decapitation by detailing a multitude of gut-wrenching accounts of the process’ aftermath and by supporting the claim that intimidation is an impossible goal. I will continue on my journey through “Reflections on the Guillotine” next week!

–Courtney Bain